Search
Good Morning Alarm Clock.
Health & Fitness and Lifestyle
App
Wake up feeling refreshed and ready for the day! Good Morning is a smart alarm clock that finds the...
Good Morning - Alarm Clock
Health & Fitness and Lifestyle
App
Good Morning Alarm Clock is a smart alarm clock that finds the optimal time to wake you up, keeps...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Mountain Between Us (2017) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
A film not quite sure what it’s trying to be.
Idris Elba after scoring a mammoth hit with UK TV’s “Luther” has really struggled to make a breakthrough as a leading man into A-grade movies. Although he’s had some strong supporting roles (“Molly’s Game” and “Star Trek Beyond” for example) and small bit parts in the Marvel universe, when he has landed a lead role they are in films best forgotton (e.g. “Bastille Day”; “The Dark Tower”). This is seldom down to his performance. Here he is given more of a chance to shine, in what is almost a two-hander with Kate Winslet for most of the film. And he is the best thing in the film: lots of the brooding look that he is so famous for.
Elba plays Ben Bass, a neuro-surgeon stranded at Boise airport who has to get back to Baltimore for an important operation. Winslett playing Alex Martin, a famous photo-journalist, is stranded with him and equally desperate to travel as she is due to get married in New York the following day. The two club together to hire a plane from charter pilot Walter (Beau Bridges, “Homeland”, “The Descendents”). But in terrible conditions, and with a medical emergency, the plane crash lands in the snow of the Rockies, and Ben and Alex (together with Walter’s Labrador) need to struggle to survive in the wilderness. The problem is that they are an odd couple, and constantly wind each other up the wrong way.
It’s a well-worn tale that has been portrayed many times before in films like “Alive” and “The Grey”, so what makes the film live or die is the quality of the screenplay and the chemistry between the characters. Unfortunately the former by Chris Weitz (co-writer on “Rogue One“) is rather clunky, and in the latter case I just didn’t feel it. Winslett’s character is just so goddamn whiney and annoying that the thought of Ben doing anything with her other than hitting her with the shovel and feeding her to the dog seems unlikely! Winslett seems to sense that too, since I never felt she was completely invested in her character. Aside from one (impressive) monologue, I found it to be a so-so performance from her.
Aside from Elba the other star of the show is the landscape of the High Uintascape in North East Utah of the which is beautifully filmed, on location by Mandy Walker (“Hidden Figures“).
The story leaps from improbability to improbability and raises more questions than it answers: in a survival situation should you walk or stay put? If you have a dog, should you eat it* and what condiments are appropriate? Does an iced-over river have any current flowing under the ice? If they both died, would the audience care?
No spoilers with answers to any of these (*apart from the dog… just joking, they don’t!) , but the ending is as corny as you can get… but it still gave me a lump in my throat. #suckered!
Directed by Hany Abu-Assad, overall if you have a rainy afternoon you need to fill then this a perfectly pleasant movie to veg in front of, but it neither completely satisfies as a romance nor as an adventure flick but falls rather uncomfortably between the two stools.
Elba plays Ben Bass, a neuro-surgeon stranded at Boise airport who has to get back to Baltimore for an important operation. Winslett playing Alex Martin, a famous photo-journalist, is stranded with him and equally desperate to travel as she is due to get married in New York the following day. The two club together to hire a plane from charter pilot Walter (Beau Bridges, “Homeland”, “The Descendents”). But in terrible conditions, and with a medical emergency, the plane crash lands in the snow of the Rockies, and Ben and Alex (together with Walter’s Labrador) need to struggle to survive in the wilderness. The problem is that they are an odd couple, and constantly wind each other up the wrong way.
It’s a well-worn tale that has been portrayed many times before in films like “Alive” and “The Grey”, so what makes the film live or die is the quality of the screenplay and the chemistry between the characters. Unfortunately the former by Chris Weitz (co-writer on “Rogue One“) is rather clunky, and in the latter case I just didn’t feel it. Winslett’s character is just so goddamn whiney and annoying that the thought of Ben doing anything with her other than hitting her with the shovel and feeding her to the dog seems unlikely! Winslett seems to sense that too, since I never felt she was completely invested in her character. Aside from one (impressive) monologue, I found it to be a so-so performance from her.
Aside from Elba the other star of the show is the landscape of the High Uintascape in North East Utah of the which is beautifully filmed, on location by Mandy Walker (“Hidden Figures“).
The story leaps from improbability to improbability and raises more questions than it answers: in a survival situation should you walk or stay put? If you have a dog, should you eat it* and what condiments are appropriate? Does an iced-over river have any current flowing under the ice? If they both died, would the audience care?
No spoilers with answers to any of these (*apart from the dog… just joking, they don’t!) , but the ending is as corny as you can get… but it still gave me a lump in my throat. #suckered!
Directed by Hany Abu-Assad, overall if you have a rainy afternoon you need to fill then this a perfectly pleasant movie to veg in front of, but it neither completely satisfies as a romance nor as an adventure flick but falls rather uncomfortably between the two stools.
Erika (17789 KP) rated Avengers: Infinity War (2018) in Movies
Apr 27, 2018 (Updated Apr 28, 2018)
Predictable (1 more)
Some shoddy SFX
Contains spoilers, click to show
So, it's finally here, Happy Infinity War day!
Now, I'm even going to enter down. Seriously, don't read any further if you want the movie unspoiled.
Yes, I'm calling the film predictable, because it was. It's not necessarily a bad thing, there just wasn't anything that honestly surprised me.
For one, I completely guessed the first two people to bite the dust, based solely on the end credit scene in Ragnarok. Heimdall dies first, but not before conveniently getting Hulk out of there.
Loki dies next, but not before you think they're completely going to reverse the story arc from Ragnarok. Whew, but they didn't. Hiddles did a really fantastic job in the whole 5-10 min he was in the film.
Thanos looked pretty good, they seemed to have fixed the color on him from the whack neon purple in that first trailer. His minions were a bit weak, and overall I don't even know what their names were, however, I don't think I was supposed to care.
I think the Guardians of the Galaxy were given way too much screentime. I'm so over them. I also got a Gamora backstory that I didn't want nor need. I'm hoping she's one of the for sure dead.
I was so happy they finally addressed Red Skull, of course he was alive! My only question is, yall couldn't shell out enough money to get Hugo Weaving back in the makeup? Come on Disney.
The only characters I for sure believe are dead and gone, are Vision, Loki, and Heimdall. Gamora is up for debate. Everyone else...come on, it's a comic book movie. I do wish they'd have had the balls to let Tony Stark die.
So, at the end, we're left with the OG Avengers. Hawkeye and Ant Man are with their fams, and Thanos got what he wanted. There's also the Captain Marvel paging scene after the credits. Of course it needed to be in there.
ALSO, set up for Venom?? That was such a good idea! At least, I believe it was supposed to be a set up...
Ah right, the shoddy SFX... there are a few scenes towards the end, especially with Thor that looked so cheap. It was strange.
Anyway, I can't give it a 10 because of those shoddy graphics, and there was too much GotG.
Now, I'm even going to enter down. Seriously, don't read any further if you want the movie unspoiled.
Yes, I'm calling the film predictable, because it was. It's not necessarily a bad thing, there just wasn't anything that honestly surprised me.
For one, I completely guessed the first two people to bite the dust, based solely on the end credit scene in Ragnarok. Heimdall dies first, but not before conveniently getting Hulk out of there.
Loki dies next, but not before you think they're completely going to reverse the story arc from Ragnarok. Whew, but they didn't. Hiddles did a really fantastic job in the whole 5-10 min he was in the film.
Thanos looked pretty good, they seemed to have fixed the color on him from the whack neon purple in that first trailer. His minions were a bit weak, and overall I don't even know what their names were, however, I don't think I was supposed to care.
I think the Guardians of the Galaxy were given way too much screentime. I'm so over them. I also got a Gamora backstory that I didn't want nor need. I'm hoping she's one of the for sure dead.
I was so happy they finally addressed Red Skull, of course he was alive! My only question is, yall couldn't shell out enough money to get Hugo Weaving back in the makeup? Come on Disney.
The only characters I for sure believe are dead and gone, are Vision, Loki, and Heimdall. Gamora is up for debate. Everyone else...come on, it's a comic book movie. I do wish they'd have had the balls to let Tony Stark die.
So, at the end, we're left with the OG Avengers. Hawkeye and Ant Man are with their fams, and Thanos got what he wanted. There's also the Captain Marvel paging scene after the credits. Of course it needed to be in there.
ALSO, set up for Venom?? That was such a good idea! At least, I believe it was supposed to be a set up...
Ah right, the shoddy SFX... there are a few scenes towards the end, especially with Thor that looked so cheap. It was strange.
Anyway, I can't give it a 10 because of those shoddy graphics, and there was too much GotG.
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Carefully Everywhere Descending in Books
Feb 13, 2018
Audrey Anderson is a bright student from a low income family. Audrey spends most of her time focused on school, with college as her ultimate goal. While she's close to her best friend, she isn't that involved with other kids at her school. However, when one of the most popular (and beautiful) girls in school, Scarlett, asks Audrey to tutor her in English, Audrey finds herself caught up in the typical drama of high school - friendship, prom, etc.
Okay, first of all, I probably bumped up this rating a bit because it was just so refreshing to read a YA LGBT novel with a nice, normal protagonist who seemed real. Most of Audrey's friends and family seem fine with her sexuality and other girls at her school go to prom together. It's wonderful to see a LGBT book where the character's sexuality is just part of her life, versus what drives the entire plot.
The book also does a good job of portraying Audrey and Scarlett's romance - Audrey's unrequited love for Scarlett seemed a bit much at first, but remembering back to the angst of teen love, it seemed right on point.
My problem with this book was some of its odd plot twists, which really didn't seem necessary. I won't spoil the book here, but I think Bedford could have stuck with Audrey and Scarlett's love story and been just fine. That being said, I didn't think they were that crazy or out of left field. I found Audrey to be a compelling and realistic character and it was great to see an author use a YA protagonist from a low income background, even if it did seem a bit overused at times. Too often these books focus on the popular kids, driving their parents' cars and living life without a care in the world. Audrey's life is probably far more realistic for many.
Frankly, the book had some holes and issues, but it was still worth the read for its portrayal of a real YA lesbian relationship and Audrey's overall situation. I enjoyed her character and read the entire book in one day - I'll certainly be recommending it to several of my friends.
(I received an ARC of this novel from Netgalley in return for an unbiased review.)
Okay, first of all, I probably bumped up this rating a bit because it was just so refreshing to read a YA LGBT novel with a nice, normal protagonist who seemed real. Most of Audrey's friends and family seem fine with her sexuality and other girls at her school go to prom together. It's wonderful to see a LGBT book where the character's sexuality is just part of her life, versus what drives the entire plot.
The book also does a good job of portraying Audrey and Scarlett's romance - Audrey's unrequited love for Scarlett seemed a bit much at first, but remembering back to the angst of teen love, it seemed right on point.
My problem with this book was some of its odd plot twists, which really didn't seem necessary. I won't spoil the book here, but I think Bedford could have stuck with Audrey and Scarlett's love story and been just fine. That being said, I didn't think they were that crazy or out of left field. I found Audrey to be a compelling and realistic character and it was great to see an author use a YA protagonist from a low income background, even if it did seem a bit overused at times. Too often these books focus on the popular kids, driving their parents' cars and living life without a care in the world. Audrey's life is probably far more realistic for many.
Frankly, the book had some holes and issues, but it was still worth the read for its portrayal of a real YA lesbian relationship and Audrey's overall situation. I enjoyed her character and read the entire book in one day - I'll certainly be recommending it to several of my friends.
(I received an ARC of this novel from Netgalley in return for an unbiased review.)
Lee (2222 KP) rated A Quiet Place (2018) in Movies
Apr 3, 2018 (Updated Apr 3, 2018)
Superb tension, great monster movie
We're on day 79 of what we assume is some kind of apocalyptic event. A general store is deserted, without power, and in a complete mess. A man and his wife (John Krasinski and off screen wife Emily Blunt) along with their 3 children, are quietly scavenging for drugs for one of the sick children, along with general supplies. They move quietly, carefully moving objects so as to not make a sound. They communicate only by sign language, and the youngest of the children is refused a battery operated rocket toy, because it will make a noise. The family quietly walk back home, and you begin to wonder what exactly could be so dangerous that it's wiped out most of humanity and left this family in fear, desperately trying to remain silent. We soon find out though, in one quick, and shocking moment.
Then we skip forward a few hundred days, joining the family once more in their home in the forest. We discover that the creatures responsible for the apocalypse are blind, with armoured skin and a superb sense of hearing which attracts them to their prey, and also explains why everyone is now being so quiet. The family walk about barefoot, still communicating in sign language and taking care not to make a sound with everything they do. It's very quiet, and very tense, which consequently amplifies every sneeze and every noisy rustle in the cinema I'm sitting in. Some of these idiots wouldn't last 5 minutes if they were in this movie!!
And then we discover that Emily Blunts character is pregnant! We see the family preparing a sound proof cot, in an underground room where the other children are also trying to make the walls soundproof. How on earth are they going to keep a baby from being heard?
Occasionally the creatures make an appearance. All teeth and claws, and genuinely scary as the family try and contain their terror to avoid making a sound. The first half of the movie follows this formula - prolonged periods of silent tension, followed by the odd burst of terror. It's extremely effective. So when the final third of the movie shifts towards more lengthy moments of monster action, with the separated family all having their own problems to overcome, it's hugely enjoyable edge of seat stuff. This really is a refreshingly smart horror movie.
Then we skip forward a few hundred days, joining the family once more in their home in the forest. We discover that the creatures responsible for the apocalypse are blind, with armoured skin and a superb sense of hearing which attracts them to their prey, and also explains why everyone is now being so quiet. The family walk about barefoot, still communicating in sign language and taking care not to make a sound with everything they do. It's very quiet, and very tense, which consequently amplifies every sneeze and every noisy rustle in the cinema I'm sitting in. Some of these idiots wouldn't last 5 minutes if they were in this movie!!
And then we discover that Emily Blunts character is pregnant! We see the family preparing a sound proof cot, in an underground room where the other children are also trying to make the walls soundproof. How on earth are they going to keep a baby from being heard?
Occasionally the creatures make an appearance. All teeth and claws, and genuinely scary as the family try and contain their terror to avoid making a sound. The first half of the movie follows this formula - prolonged periods of silent tension, followed by the odd burst of terror. It's extremely effective. So when the final third of the movie shifts towards more lengthy moments of monster action, with the separated family all having their own problems to overcome, it's hugely enjoyable edge of seat stuff. This really is a refreshingly smart horror movie.
Bethany Fletcher (17 KP) rated Children of Blood and Bone: Book 1 in Books
Jun 24, 2018 (Updated Jun 25, 2018)
While buddy reading this with a friend we realised it was a plain copy of Avatar the Last Airbender. There is the king attacking magicians which is basically the fire nation attacking the air nomads. There is a secret temple that worships the magical gods and the protectors are there to help the chosen one. Basically the fire temple on the crescent island that is there to worship the Avatar and help Aang.
The characters were cardboard copies of Avatar. Zelie is a mix of Aang and Katara. There is Zelie’s brother, Tzain, who is the only one who doesn’t get magic because screw you Sokka you are not a Bender! They are being chased around by the Prince Inan who wants to impress his daddy but has mixed moral feelings. Hi there Zuko nice to see you again!
The plot was super confusing. There were parts that weren’t explained at all. So Inanas powers are control over someone’s mind right, so he can take someone into his ‘dreamscape’ (basically the Bone Season by Samantha Shannon). Anyway, he takes Zelie into his dreamscape and she hates him as he is a royal and hunting her down BUT she strips off naked and skinny dips? Why? There is no reason and it made zero sense for someone who is terrified of Inan to make themselves that vulnerable.
Zelie gets over her hatred for Inan pretty quick and soon they are lusting after each other. She doesn’t seem to care about the previous hatred and Inan is the only one who struggles morally. Here’s the thing, did they actually have sex? They had sex in Inan’s dreamscape while there physical bodies were actually no where near each other. Zelie was with her brother. So did their minds have sex? Did they share a dream where they both got it on? After Zelie is super awkward about it but it’s like, you didn’t actually do anything, did you? Not explained very well.
I could go on all day but I shan’t. It wasn’t even written well. It just read like the author didn’t know what to write so copied something they knew was succesful. If these things will annoy you as much as they did me then I would suggest skipping this book.
The characters were cardboard copies of Avatar. Zelie is a mix of Aang and Katara. There is Zelie’s brother, Tzain, who is the only one who doesn’t get magic because screw you Sokka you are not a Bender! They are being chased around by the Prince Inan who wants to impress his daddy but has mixed moral feelings. Hi there Zuko nice to see you again!
The plot was super confusing. There were parts that weren’t explained at all. So Inanas powers are control over someone’s mind right, so he can take someone into his ‘dreamscape’ (basically the Bone Season by Samantha Shannon). Anyway, he takes Zelie into his dreamscape and she hates him as he is a royal and hunting her down BUT she strips off naked and skinny dips? Why? There is no reason and it made zero sense for someone who is terrified of Inan to make themselves that vulnerable.
Zelie gets over her hatred for Inan pretty quick and soon they are lusting after each other. She doesn’t seem to care about the previous hatred and Inan is the only one who struggles morally. Here’s the thing, did they actually have sex? They had sex in Inan’s dreamscape while there physical bodies were actually no where near each other. Zelie was with her brother. So did their minds have sex? Did they share a dream where they both got it on? After Zelie is super awkward about it but it’s like, you didn’t actually do anything, did you? Not explained very well.
I could go on all day but I shan’t. It wasn’t even written well. It just read like the author didn’t know what to write so copied something they knew was succesful. If these things will annoy you as much as they did me then I would suggest skipping this book.
Neon's Nerd Nexus (360 KP) created a post
Dec 23, 2019
Kelly (279 KP) rated Spartacus - Season 1 in TV
Dec 21, 2018
Gladiators (1 more)
Great fighting scenes
Much better than the 1960 film
Who would have thought that the story of Spartacus could have been made raunchy for a modern audience, but Starz did this really well. The general facts around the slave rebellion against the Romans, led by the former gladiator Spartacus are limited, however Starz used what information there was and filled in the rest to create a believable version of the tale.
I know that around the release of the series, there was a lot of talk about the use of CGI in the show, mainly during the battle scenes, with the appearance of animated blood splatters/slashes, similar to that shown in the film 300. This use seemed to have divided the audience into either ‘love it’ or ‘hate it’. Personally, I feel that this was the unique selling point of the show- something different that we are not used to on the TV screen, I felt it helped made the show more watchable.
For me Andy Whitfield made Spartacus (and his loss was noticed in the later series of the show). His love towards wife Sura is clear throughout series one, and gave us a believable reason as to why he allowed himself to be manipulated by Batiatus. He was also supported by a number of well cast actors including Manu Bennett (Crixus) and Peter Mensah (Oenomaus), by the end of the series, we find that we really care about these characters.
The reason that I have not rated the show higher, is the casting of John Hannah as Batiatus. John Hannah is a good actor, but I felt the role was not suited to him. To me, Batiatus needed to be a little crueler and more angry, at the end of the day, he was profit and power hungry, and willing to give the lives of men in order to pay the cost of his personal success. There were times, when I did not believe that this was what John Hannah was portrayed, and there was an awkwardness around some of his scenes (particularly those where there were a lot of swearing).
Overall, despite the odd flaw, I really enjoyed watching Spartacus (and have happily purchased the complete box set for re-watching in future) .
I know that around the release of the series, there was a lot of talk about the use of CGI in the show, mainly during the battle scenes, with the appearance of animated blood splatters/slashes, similar to that shown in the film 300. This use seemed to have divided the audience into either ‘love it’ or ‘hate it’. Personally, I feel that this was the unique selling point of the show- something different that we are not used to on the TV screen, I felt it helped made the show more watchable.
For me Andy Whitfield made Spartacus (and his loss was noticed in the later series of the show). His love towards wife Sura is clear throughout series one, and gave us a believable reason as to why he allowed himself to be manipulated by Batiatus. He was also supported by a number of well cast actors including Manu Bennett (Crixus) and Peter Mensah (Oenomaus), by the end of the series, we find that we really care about these characters.
The reason that I have not rated the show higher, is the casting of John Hannah as Batiatus. John Hannah is a good actor, but I felt the role was not suited to him. To me, Batiatus needed to be a little crueler and more angry, at the end of the day, he was profit and power hungry, and willing to give the lives of men in order to pay the cost of his personal success. There were times, when I did not believe that this was what John Hannah was portrayed, and there was an awkwardness around some of his scenes (particularly those where there were a lot of swearing).
Overall, despite the odd flaw, I really enjoyed watching Spartacus (and have happily purchased the complete box set for re-watching in future) .
Pomelo Fashion
Shopping and Lifestyle
App
Welcome to Pomelo: Affordable fashion born in Asia. On trend. Online. On the go. With an...